tmyers
En-Route
Then maybe he should be injesting Feenamint gum
Same here, I find it hard to believe that all of these people would sign off on him being able to drive while legally intoxicated. That would put tons of liability on them as well as the county and state for issuing the license if there ever was an incident caused.
Don't think for an instant that the FAA has deemed any such thing. All they have to do is measure your BAC and compare it to the values in 14 CFR 91.17, and that's the end of that.If allowed to demonstrate my abilities on multiple occasions with varying BAC levels, I am certain that I can demonstrate I would not be a hazard to other persons or property. Even the FAA (through the designated examiner) already deemed me to not be a hazard while under the influence.
They don't have to make any such case, or otherwise prove anything except that your BAC was above 91.17 limits, and then you are toast. There is no way on God's green earth they're ever going to make an exception to or give any exemption from that regulation. So, back to what I said up front:They could probably make a case that I am a hazard while sober however, as demonstrated on my first commercial check ride.
If I'd known you'd been drinking before flying with you, I would not have flown with you. If I'd known you were flying while drinking, there would have been law enforcement waiting for you when you landed, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion.And that of three separate designated examiners, and a handful of flight instructors that signed off on my flight reviews. And you certainly had no qualms about my performance when we flew together quite a few years ago. So, it's not just my word, it's also yours. Yes, you were one of the people from the board I have flown with. But, no, you did not sign my logbook, so don't worry about being the instructor that I flew with.
Don't think for an instant that the FAA has deemed any such thing. All they have to do is measure your BAC and compare it to the values in 14 CFR 91.17, and that's the end of that.
They don't have to make any such case, or otherwise prove anything except that your BAC was above 91.17 limits, and then you are toast. There is no way on God's green earth they're ever going to make an exception to or give any exemption from that regulation. So, back to what I said up front:
If I'd known you'd been drinking before flying with you, I would not have flown with you. If I'd known you were flying while drinking, there would have been law enforcement waiting for you when you landed, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- Quit flying.
- Quit drinking.
- Keep flying while drunk until you get caught and suffer the FAA's wrath.
And I don't think there's anything more for me to say regardless of any response you might post.
OK, here is why I think the OP is a troll.
His writing is fairly clean, certainly above average. That shows education, and at least some brains.
With that amount of smarts, he can easily predict the general responses on this board.
At the same time, if he were for real, being this unique would make him very recognizable to the people in his town, including cops, judges, etc., and posting here would make him even more prominent.
Even if we assume that a small town is a close-knit community, "like family", even in a family people talk, and eventually somebody outside the close circle finds out about it, and the fact that he's a pilot, and spills the beans, perhaps to a pilot friend, or maybe law enforcement.
The above scenario would be obvious to a person of minimal intelligence, and the OP is clearly smarter than that threshold. If he were for real, he would never risk his ticket and flying for the thrill of posting on a bulletin board.
So bottom line: troll.
Ron, have you made it to Gaston's yet? This was a particularly good year!
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1579681
If that’s he case, than I think y’all could have come up with something just a slight bit more trollworthy.Identity of the troll was known before the first post appeared. At least three members of the MC were present (as was I and and a few other members) when the perpetrator came up with the idea.
That's what you want us to believe.Identity of the troll was known before the first post appeared. At least three members of the MC were present (as was I and and a few other members) when the perpetrator came up with the idea.